Archive

Written by Adam Taylor
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
May 31, 2012

Editor’s note: This is Part 4 (see Part 3) of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold.
Part 4: Puffs of Dust

The next section of PM’s book deals with one of the more direct pieces of evidence of demolition for the Towers – the isolated ejections of dust and debris from the Towers during the collapses. Like most of its arguments, PM’s challenge to this evidence of demolition is extremely weak and was previously refuted by experts at AE911Truth and elsewhere.

PM’s case against the ejections begins with a discussion of how the Towers were designed. As noted by PM, “Like the vast majority of office buildings, the Twin Towers were mostly air.” (pg. 48) PM intended this assertion to support the idea that… the ejections were caused by built-up air pressure. Although it is true that the Towers, like most buildings, were mostly air by volume, the air was not pressurized, as noted by Kevin Ryan:

[T]he floors were not air-tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would not be contained.[i]

In other words, the Towers were not like fully inflated balloons, ready to burst the moment one of their windows was punctured.

PM also quotes Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST: “When you have a significant portion of the floor collapsing, it’s going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window.” (pg. 48)

The problem with this assertion is that the material contained within the squibs is not merely dust, but also pulverized building material. As noted by Dr. Crockett Grabbe:

Note that the debris coming out with the squib on the right is falling, showing that it is made up of particles of matter shooting out, not just smoke (as defenders of the NIST report claimed).[ii]